I'M none too sure that this will go down too well with the provincial-minded brigade, but here goes.

In the immediate aftermath of Ireland's historic win over Australia on a wet Dublin day a few were heard to state, "What a great example for provincial rugby."

Yes, I thought, what a great example that was of the continued success of the Wallabies - the team based on three provincial teams that enjoy every advantage the Australian Rugby Union can afford them.

A few hours later the doubters - myself included, I must confess - were drooling over Wales's seven-try demolition of Fiji.

Very little more could have been asked of Wales as the inconsistencies on view against Romania were smoothed out.

But there was no hint of an example of the benefits of developing players through a provincial system at the Millennium Stadium last Saturday, that's for sure.

And then there were England seeing off New Zealand at Twickenham. And strangely enough, Clive Woodward's boys did the business having plied their entire professional careers at clubs.

Ditto France in a victory over province-orientated South Africa that tells us all that Wales should also have beaten the Springboks at least once in the summer.

Of course, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have long been held up as the great examples of what can be achieved on the back of a provincial system.

More recently, Ireland have been hitched up to the southern hemisphere bandwagon in rugby people's minds with Scotland also trying to thumb a ride.

At the same time England and France have led the northern hemisphere charge on the back of club systems, albeit ones that have generated their unfair share of political in-fighting down the years.

But to me the whole provinces v clubs debate misses the point by considerable proportions. And in any case the current debate between leading clubs and the Welsh Rugby Union is largely concentrated on the available finances rather than available talent.

If you really want to form a link between Irish, English, French and Welsh successes from last weekend, then perhaps the abilities of the national coaches were rather more important than the systems in which the players were nurtured.

The apparent obsession with the debate that has raged with varying degrees of fury in Wales during the last decade (or more) has ignored other, rather more fundamental issues.

First and foremost among them is that you don't have to be playing for a province to be a dedicated professional.

Honing body, speed, skills and cohesive team-work is not the preserve of players that are drawn from within specific geographical boundaries.

It seems to me that in Wales - the country that revolutionised coaching during the 1970s - the value placed on progressive, proactive innovation has massively diminished.

There are good, strong arguments for provincial rugby being introduced in Wales. Bringing the best players together, reducing top-flight opportunities and so creating increased competition for financially-lucrative squad places are the best ones I have heard.

But the big issue of coaching standards and the intellectual approach to that task has been sadly overlooked by those seeking a fix for Welsh rugby's ills.

The common threads throughout the victories European teams enjoyed over their southern hemisphere rivals last weekend were varied.

Let's not forget there were 20 All

Blacks, including their entire Tri-Nations pack, absent from defeat against England.

Australia's strength was also diminished by some injury and rest issues. But, like Ireland and England, Wales could also only beat what was in front of them and each of those countries did so with varying degrees of impressiveness.

Wales coach Steve Hansen took over at a weak point during last season's Six Nations championship and was really only able to start putting his stamp on the national squad in the latter stages of that tournament, but more particularly on that two-Test tour to South Africa.

He took a lot of new faces, left quite a few familiar ones behind and set about putting the foundations in place for the guts of his reign.

In South Africa it was absolutely clear from the attitude of all the players that new and positive, disciplined standards were being set on a welter of off-field issues.

It was also absolutely clear that any players to be added or rein-troduced to Hansen's foundation material would immediately notice a sea-change of attitudes in the camp to which they would also have to adhere.

Added to that has been some psychological prompting, the prime example being the selection of three full-backs.

That ploy, sparked by discussions between Hansen and assistant Scott Johnson, has simply been used to open players' minds to the possibilities because the concept of freedom to roam for the back three is not new.

Hopefully, that sort of innovative thinking will act as a catalyst among Wales's leading club coaches, where the emphasis on plotting victories has often stifled the development of talented individuals and, in some cases, acted against teams' efforts.

Hansen was himself a successful coach at provincial level in New Zealand. But the qualities that make him a high-flying coach have little to do with the system.

A good coach is a good coach whether he is in charge of a village club or the British Lions. Ditto good coaching - it's the preserve of well-educated coaches, not the structure within which they ply their trade.

And if Welsh rugby needs anything at all to improve standards, then more high-standard coaches would be my priority over any revolution in the playing structure.